People keep calling the new site in Turkey a 'lost city' and it's not right

I keep seeing news articles about the 2021 dig at Karahantepe in Turkey. They all call it a 'lost city' found in the hills. That's wrong. It's not a city, it's a ritual site from about 11,000 years ago, older than Gobekli Tepe. Calling it a city makes people think of houses and streets, but it's mostly T-shaped pillars and carved animal heads in round buildings. I read the lead archaeologist's report, and he said it was likely a special place for ceremonies, not where people lived every day. This mix-up matters because it changes how regular people understand what life was like back then. Has anyone else noticed this trend of calling every big find a 'lost city' just because it sounds better?

3 comments

3 Comments

juliaa658d ago

Totally agree about the "lost city" label being wrong. I was just reading an article that called it a "metropolis" which is even worse (like, come on). It makes you picture a whole busy town, but like you said, it's those round rooms with the big stone animals. @the_faith has a point about the Roman "supermarket" thing too. It's the same kind of lazy word choice. They did it with that place in Jordan a few years back, calling a big temple complex a "city" when it was clearly mostly for pilgrims. Once that picture gets in your head from the news, it's hard to fix it later.

-1

sandra_moore308d ago

Tell me about it. Once they plant that wrong idea, it just lives in your head rent free.

the_faith8d ago

Yeah, the "lost city" thing is everywhere. It reminds me of when they kept calling that old Roman dig in England a "supermarket" just because they found a bunch of shops in a row. It just sticks in your head wrong and you can't unsee it.

-2